ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Biomechanical comparison of a novel triangular fixation stem and a conventional fixation stem in a model of a prosthesis for ultrashort residual proximal femur reconstruction: a finite element analysis study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReconstruction using a megaprosthesis is the primary method for treating long segmental bone tumors in the extremities following resection. However, conventional stem (CS) prostheses fail to provide stable fixation in the metaphysis. To improve prosthetic fixation in the proximal femoral metaphysis, in a previous study, we proposed a novel triangular fixation stem (TFS) design. The purpose of the present study was to use the finite element analysis (FEA) method to compare biomechanical properties of models of the TFS and CS prostheses for ultrashort residual proximal femur (URPF) reconstructions.
methodsFEA was performed using a commercially-available software package and a Sawbones femur model subjected to a static load of 2800 N. This load simulated the weight of an adult weighing 70 kg doing a squat. The parameters determined were von Mises stress distribution, maximum von Mises stress, displacement distribution, and maximum displacement in different parts of the model, such as the femur and the prosthesis.
resultsThe TFS prosthesis exhibited a more even von Mises stress distribution stress compared to the CS prosthesis. The maximum von Mises stresses on the prosthetic stem surface were 68.99 MPa and 85.91 MPa for the TFS and CS models, respectively. In the TFS model, the maximum von Mises stresses in the lateral plate and the screws were 115.28 MPa and 122.25 MPa, respectively. Regarding von Mises stresses distribution in the femur, the TFS model showed 26.80 MPa and 34.71 medially and laterally, respectively, whereas the CS model displayed 34.21 MPa and 20.36 medially and laterally, respectively. In the TFS model, maximum displacements were 0.51 mm in the femur and 0.18 mm in the prosthesis, with the corresponding values in the CS model being 0.71 mm and 0.30 mm, respectively.
conclusionThe von Mises stress distribution of the model containing the TFS prosthesis is more even than that containing the CS prosthesis. Thus, the TFS prosthesis may be promising for use as prosthetic implantation in the reconstruction of a URPF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.